Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: approaches to the history of the Roman family
- Part I Roman life course and kinship: biology and culture
- Part II Roman family and culture: definitions and norms
- 4 Familia and domus: defining and representing the Roman family and household
- 5 Pietas and patria potestas: obligation and power in the Roman household
- 6 Whips and words: discipline and punishment in the Roman household
- Part III The devolution of property in the Roman family
- Bibliography
- Index
- Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time
6 - Whips and words: discipline and punishment in the Roman household
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 November 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: approaches to the history of the Roman family
- Part I Roman life course and kinship: biology and culture
- Part II Roman family and culture: definitions and norms
- 4 Familia and domus: defining and representing the Roman family and household
- 5 Pietas and patria potestas: obligation and power in the Roman household
- 6 Whips and words: discipline and punishment in the Roman household
- Part III The devolution of property in the Roman family
- Bibliography
- Index
- Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time
Summary
In his powerful interpretation of slavery in the American South, Eugene Genovese discusses the conception of the plantation as a “ family, white and black.” Like the domus in Rome, the planter's family encompassed his wife and children and his slaves, “and therein lay dangerous implications.” In suffering merciless beatings, the slaves “did not always fare much worse than the master's wife and children. From ancient to modern times we hear this theme. According to Roman legend, Manlius Torquatus beheaded his son, who had just returned victorious from combat, for breaking ranks.” Genovese quotes planters on the virtues of corporal punishment of children and slaves alike, concluding: “The slaveholders' vision of themselves as authoritarian fathers who presided over an extended and subservient family, white and black, grew up naturally in the process of founding plantations.” In the cultural matrix of the slave society, then, the categories of the master's slaves and of his children were assimilated, both subject to patriarchal authority enforced by violent coercion. As Genovese's reference to Manlius Torquatus shows, the stereotype of the Roman paterfamilias invites projection of such an assimilation back to Roman society, apparently confirmed by the similarities in the legal position of the slave and the filiusfamilias.
Despite the law, the Romans did not assimilate children and slaves in their reflections on the nature of authority. Cicero, following Greek philosophers, wrote that “different kinds of domination and subjection (et imperandi et serviendi) must be distinguished.” A father governs his children who follow out of readiness to obey (propter oboediendi facilitatem), but a master must “coerce and break (coercet et frangit) his slave” (Rep. 3.37).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family , pp. 133 - 154Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1994